On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:03:27 +0000, Paul wrote:

Great stories Lloyd. As God is my witness I thought a burl would sink and if
I were on the beach with you I would have bet you 5 bucks.


Well, it WAS heavy, but it was big too. Gut feeling while I was rolling it
down was that it would float.

And I admit I used my calculator to figure out the scope and when it came
out to an even "4" I was properly ashamed. Could/should have done that in my
head but you threw me off with the fathoms.

Actually, it's more complicated, which is why I asked the question.
Everyone who answered assumed a flat bottom, which was not the case.
"Scope" gives the angle between the rode and the bottom, but if the bottom
is sloped, it's not the same as if it's flat. In this case, the actual
scope would be something less than 4:1 since the bottom was sloping out.
(draw a diagram to see what I mean...)

A lot of "sail guys" seem to use
fathoms, do you have your depth sounder set to read in fathoms?


No, I do the conversion in my head. I use fathoms because when I let out
rode, I measure it by stretching my arms wide and letting it belly out a
bit - pretty close to 1 fathom.

Problem is, all Canadian charts now show depths in meters. Yuk!

So what is Angelique going to make with the burl?

It's a maze of roots, with holes, windy things, etc. As I mentioned, she's
going to cut a section out of it and put it in her snake habitat to let
the snake wind around the roots and through the holes. I have some pics of
it on the digital camera, that unfortunately was left onboard. I'll post
them as soon as I get the camera off the boat.

Lloyd Sumpter
"Far Cove" Catalina 36

Actually, it's more complicated, which is why I asked the question.
Everyone who answered assumed a flat bottom, which was not the case.
"Scope" gives the angle between the rode and the bottom, but if the bottom
is sloped, it's not the same as if it's flat. In this case, the actual
scope would be something less than 4:1 since the bottom was sloping out.
(draw a diagram to see what I mean...)

Ahh, I didn't know that. I thought the depth under the boat would be
irrelevant and that you threw that in there to add some confusion. The
things I don't know ...

Problem is, all Canadian charts now show depths in meters. Yuk!

Wonder if electronic charts will allow you to switch between units?

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:22:29 +0000, Paul wrote:

Actually, it's more complicated, which is why I asked the question.
Everyone who answered assumed a flat bottom, which was not the case.
"Scope" gives the angle between the rode and the bottom, but if the bottom
is sloped, it's not the same as if it's flat. In this case, the actual
scope would be something less than 4:1 since the bottom was sloping out.
(draw a diagram to see what I mean...)

Ahh, I didn't know that. I thought the depth under the boat would be
irrelevant and that you threw that in there to add some confusion. The
things I don't know ...

Don't worry - hardly anyone figures the bottom slope into their
calculations.


Problem is, all Canadian charts now show depths in meters. Yuk!

Wonder if electronic charts will allow you to switch between units?

Last time I looked at "electronic charts" for the West Coast of Canada,
they had Welcome Passage's stbd marker just about exactly where the port
marker really is, and the stbd marker at the entrance to Secret Cove in
the middle of Turnagain Island.

I have a good-quality but non-graphical GPS (Furuno) and paper charts.

Lloyd Sumpter
"Far Cove" Catalina 36

Actually, Lloyd, it is more complicated mainly because you gave no
consideration for the hieght of your bow roller above the water. Also,
must authorities on anchoring consider the "scope" to be the ratio of the
depth of the water above the anchor to the length of the anchor
rode. The configuration of the bottom is not part of this calculation,
although it should be another consideration.
Jim

"Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:03:27 +0000, Paul wrote:

Great stories Lloyd. As God is my witness I thought a burl would sink
and if
I were on the beach with you I would have bet you 5 bucks.


Well, it WAS heavy, but it was big too. Gut feeling while I was rolling it
down was that it would float.

And I admit I used my calculator to figure out the scope and when it
came
out to an even "4" I was properly ashamed. Could/should have done that
in my
head but you threw me off with the fathoms.

Actually, it's more complicated, which is why I asked the question.
Everyone who answered assumed a flat bottom, which was not the case.
"Scope" gives the angle between the rode and the bottom, but if the bottom
is sloped, it's not the same as if it's flat. In this case, the actual
scope would be something less than 4:1 since the bottom was sloping out.
(draw a diagram to see what I mean...)

A lot of "sail guys" seem to use
fathoms, do you have your depth sounder set to read in fathoms?


No, I do the conversion in my head. I use fathoms because when I let out
rode, I measure it by stretching my arms wide and letting it belly out a
bit - pretty close to 1 fathom.

Problem is, all Canadian charts now show depths in meters. Yuk!

So what is Angelique going to make with the burl?

It's a maze of roots, with holes, windy things, etc. As I mentioned, she's
going to cut a section out of it and put it in her snake habitat to let
the snake wind around the roots and through the holes. I have some pics of
it on the digital camera, that unfortunately was left onboard. I'll post
them as soon as I get the camera off the boat.

Lloyd Sumpter
"Far Cove" Catalina 36

"Jim Dorval" wrote in message
...
Actually, Lloyd, it is more complicated mainly because you gave no
consideration for the hieght of your bow roller above the water.

Oh damn, excellent point.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:56:32 +0000, Jim Dorval wrote:

Actually, Lloyd, it is more complicated mainly because you gave no
consideration for the hieght of your bow roller above the water.

In this case, you're probably right - it did make a difference. But in
general, where I anchor, I'm often in 60ft of water, so the extra 4ft is
negligible. Also, tides often vary over 15ft, and again the bottom is not
flat, varying by more than 4 ft over the length of the boat, so the roller
height is negligible in the calculations. (Even in this case: I said the
depth was 24ft, but it was varying from 22 to almost 30 as I was dropping
the anchor, and it was 2ft deeper when I retrieved!)

My main purpose here is to show that Real Life is rarely as simple as the
diagrams you see in the books and courses.

Lloyd